From: Colorado Springs
This is strictly a wish-list. Since it's a wish list, of course some features won't be imlemented. This will happen because of the time required, the lack of definition, because they don't fit with my 'vision' of what TOAW should be, or for other reasons. I'm very glad that someone took the time to gather it in one place.
I know the games I like to play, and it's games that avoid micromanagement, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I know the difference between games that require you to manage youre units and make interesting decisions, and games that require you to micromanage and make meaningless choices. TOAW does a fairly good job of requiring management, but the UI still needs some tweaking to elimiante more of the micromanagement, clicking on 30 units and setting them to 'ignore losses' isn't my idea of fun. We need to eitehr explain what the differences are between the different stances, and why you would want to use each one, autmate the default setting of them, or make it easier.
All features added need to be optional or non-breaking. The recently added new flanking rules are something that's optional because while I believe it makes things better, it may also change the balance of some scenarios.
If you want something to be seriously considered, remeber that I'm lazy<g>. If there's a specific proposal to add like 'Leaders' as optional equipment that can have a range that would be sown up on range rings in this color, and would affect all units that are either pass a communications check, or... You get the idea. The more details, and the more simple the idea is, the more likely it is that it will be implemented.
Items that are simple to understand and code and either simplify playing the game or make it more immersive or make it better able to model more conflicts are more likely to be implemented.
The beta team that I rely on for help probably has over 50 years of experience with TOAW, so it's not just my arbitrary decisions. They've got a good idea (usually several conflicting ones of what things will and won't work.
You seem be be a bit hung up on Elephants, Actually, even though White Rabbit is hung up on them, they aren't just for ancient warfare. The idea of allowing Elmer to control individual formations would also be useful for controlling sides in a game. For example it might be possible to play a game like Europe Aflame, allowing Elmer to control Switzerland's navy<g>. That would allow the designer to add in more 'flavor' while not requiring extra work for the player when there are no 'interesting decisions' to be made by those units. If I add computer controlled formations, it opens up some decent ideas like the small scale scenarios havinh units reatreating like in Steel Panthers. 'Elephants' are a pretty minor step from that, and can also be used to control things like friendly guerillas.
If Elephants hadn't been on the wish-list, I wouldn't have thought of them, but they may be easy to implement, and open up some new possibilities.
TOAW III Programmer
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.